[Advaita-l] Which Advaita?
shankarabharadwaj at yahoo.com
Mon May 30 10:01:46 CDT 2011
I think we are agreeing here. Vivarta vAda is the substantiation for mithyAtva
of phenomenal causation. The moment the phenomenal world is not mithya, we would
have to account for its pariNAma. It does not matter whether we uphold
non-dualism or dualism as long as we are saying the world is a pariNAma. The
whole frame changes when we say it is not pariNAma but a vivarta, because then
the relation between immutable and mutation is now across frames (an absolute
and a relative/phenomenal) - which is why there is an anirvacanIya. PariNAma
vAda takes the multiplicity/mutation itself to be eternally true, and as
existing all the while along with the absolute as a second principle, so it is
not actually addressing the relation/transformation between immutable and
mutation. It is only vivarta vAda that tries to reconcile even these.
Am I missing something?
BTW there is another quick clarification I wanted - which is the school that
says Isvara is brahman descending into the primal upAdhi of mAya? Is this really
Sankara's position or a sAkta position? Since brahman is the abode of mAya, this
can result in mutual dependence (which is also okay when we anyway say they are
undifferentiated and inseparable but not two different principles).
Ramesh Krishnamurthy rkmurthy at gmail.com
Mon May 30 06:56:24 CDT 2011
On 30 May 2011 13:32, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli < shankarabharadwaj at
yahoo.com> wrote: << Thank you. Both dual and non-dual positions are stated by
various dArsanika-s. What I meant to say is that the uniqueness of Sankara
darsana lies not in non-dualism itself but in the vivarta vAda. So the moment we
bring in vivarta concept most of the criticism on Sankara darsana does not hold
ground.>> Dear Shankar, The uniqueness of advaita-vedAnta lies in the
understanding of the ***mithyAtva of causation*** and not in vivartavAda. What
advaita-vedAnta provides is a lot more than just another theory of causation.
"Non-dual" in advaita-vedAnta is not another "ism" or "vAda". It implies, at the
very least, an understanding of the falsehood of pramAtR^itva itself. There is
no question of the satyatva of a view, position or vAda when pramAtR^itva itself
is not satya. Ramesh
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list